Opinion: America shouldn’t put Cuba back under its thumb

Self-restraint is needed if Cuba is to evolve toward more open society

NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images

Cuban President Raul Castro, U.S. President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama listen to music during the state dinner at the Revolution Palace in Havana on Monday.

By

JeffreyD. Sachs

Columnist

HannahSachs

BEIJING (Project Syndicate) — Barack Obama’s visit to Cuba is the first by a U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge went in 1928. American investors, expat Cubans, tourists, scholars, and scam artists will follow in Obama’s wake. Normalization of the bilateral relationship will pose opportunities and perils for Cuba, and a giant test of maturity for the United States.

The Cuban Revolution led by Fidel Castro 57 years ago was a profound affront to the U.S. psyche. Since the founding of the U.S., its leaders have staked a claim to American exceptionalism. So compelling is the U.S. model, according to its leaders, that every decent country must surely choose to follow America’s lead. When foreign governments are foolish enough to reject the American way, they should expect retribution for harming U.S. interests (seen to align with universal interests) and thereby threatening U.S. security.

Obama and Castro Promise to Improve Relations

(2:33)

In a joint press conference Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro said their countries may disagree on many issues but they agree that they will take necessary steps to improve U.S.-Cuba relations.

With Havana a mere 90 miles from the Florida Keys, American meddling in Cuba has been incessant. Thomas Jefferson opined in 1820 that the U.S. “ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba.” It finally did so in 1898, when the U.S. intervened in a Cuban rebellion against Spain to assert effective U.S. economic and political hegemony over the island.

In the fighting that ensued, the U.S. grabbed Guantánamo as a naval base and asserted (in the now infamous Platt Amendment) a future right to intervene in Cuba. U.S. Marines repeatedly occupied Cuba thereafter, and Americans quickly took ownership of most of Cuba’s lucrative sugar plantations, the economic aim of America’s intervention. Gen. Fulgencio Batista, who was eventually overthrown by Castro, was the last of a long line of repressive rulers installed and maintained in power by the U.S.

The U.S. kept Cuba under its thumb, and, in accordance with U.S. investor interests, the export economy remained little more than sugar and tobacco plantations throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Castro’s revolution to topple Batista aimed to create a modern, diversified economy. Given the lack of a clear strategy, however, that goal was not to be achieved.

Castro’s agrarian reforms and nationalization, which began in 1959, alarmed U.S. sugar interests and led the U.S. to introduce new trade restrictions. These escalated to cuts in Cuba’s allowable sugar exports to the U.S. and an embargo on U.S. oil and food exports to Cuba. When Castro turned to the Soviet Union to fill the gap, President Dwight Eisenhower issued a secret order to the CIA to topple the new regime, leading to the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, in the first months of John F. Kennedy’s administration.

Looking for a Cuban Cigar? Try a Nicaraguan

(2:04)

As the U.S. eases trade and travel rules with Cuba, many Americans are looking forward to a taste of Cuban culture, in particular their famed cigars. But, until the trade embargo is lifted, you might want to consider an alternative.

Later, the CIA was given the green light to assassinate Castro. In 1962, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev decided to forestall another U.S. invasion — and teach the U.S. a lesson — by surreptitiously installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, thereby triggering the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.

Through dazzling restraint by both Kennedy and Khrushchev, and no small measure of good luck, humanity was spared; the Soviet missiles were removed, and the U.S. pledged not to launch another invasion. Instead, the U.S. doubled down on the trade embargo, demanded restitution for nationalized properties, and pushed Cuba irrevocably into the Soviet Union’s waiting arms. Cuba’s sugar monoculture remained in place, though its output now headed to the Soviet Union rather than the U.S.

The half-century of a Soviet-style economy, exacerbated by the U.S. trade embargo and related policies, took a heavy toll. In purchasing-power terms, Cuba’s per capita income stands at roughly one-fifth of the U.S. level. Yet Cuba’s achievements in boosting literacy and public health are substantial. Life expectancy in Cuba equals that of the U.S., and is much higher than in most of Latin America. Cuban doctors have played an important role in disease control in Africa in recent years.

Normalization of diplomatic relations creates two very different scenarios for U.S.-Cuba relations.

In the first, the U.S. reverts to its bad old ways, demanding draconian policy measures by Cuba in exchange for “normal” bilateral economic relations. Congress might, for example, uncompromisingly demand the restitution of property that was nationalized during the revolution; the unrestricted right of Americans to buy Cuban land and other property; privatization of state-owned enterprises at fire-sale prices; and the end of progressive social policies such as the public health system. It could get ugly.

In the second scenario, which would constitute a historic break with precedent, the U.S. would exercise self-restraint. Congress would restore trade relations with Cuba, without insisting that Cuba remake itself in America’s image or forcing Cuba to revisit the post-revolution nationalizations. Cuba would not be pressured to abandon state-financed health care or to open the health sector to private American investors. Cubans look forward to such a mutually respectful relationship, but bristle at the prospect of renewed subservience.

This is not to say that Cuba should move slowly on its own reforms. Cuba should quickly make its currency convertible for trade, expand property rights, and (with considerable care and transparency) privatize some enterprises.

Such market-based reforms, combined with robust public investment, could speed economic growth and diversification, while protecting Cuba’s achievements in health, education, and social services. Cuba can and should aim for Costa Rican-style social democracy, rather than the cruder capitalism of the U.S. (The first author here believed the same about Poland 25 years ago: It should aim for Scandinavian-style social democracy, rather than the neoliberalism of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.)

The resumption of economic relations between the U.S. and Cuba is therefore a test for both countries. Cuba needs significant reforms to meet its economic potential without jeopardizing its great social achievements. The U.S. needs to exercise unprecedented and unaccustomed self-control, to allow Cuba the time and freedom of maneuver it needs to forge a modern and diversified economy that is mostly owned and operated by the Cuban people themselves rather than their northern neighbors.

Jeffrey D. Sachs, professor of sustainable development, professor of health policy and management, and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is also special adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals. Hannah Sachs is studying Cuban history at Yale University.

Intraday Data provided by SIX Financial Information and subject to terms of use.
Historical and current end-of-day data provided by SIX Financial Information. Intraday data
delayed per exchange requirements. S&P/Dow Jones Indices (SM) from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
All quotes are in local exchange time. Real time last sale data provided by NASDAQ. More
information on NASDAQ traded symbols and their current financial status. Intraday
data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, and 20 minutes for other exchanges. S&P/Dow Jones Indices (SM)
from Dow Jones & Company, Inc. SEHK intraday data is provided by SIX Financial Information and is
at least 60-minutes delayed. All quotes are in local exchange time.